Climate Change Mega Thread

[foenix]

Is earth really in danger? What are the signs? Coral is raging back. Arctic ice is raging back. Antarctic ice still creeps higher. Polar bear populations are growing. Greenland ice melt slowed significantly.

That's called eyes wide shut because the evidence is all around.

The Planet Has Lost Half of Its Coral Reefs Since 1950

Scientists have long known that reefs are in peril, but a new study published today in the journal One Earth quantifies coral losses around the world. The in-depth analysis reveals half of coral reefs have been lost since the 1950s. Scientists say climate change, overfishing and pollution are decimating these fragile ecosystems and putting communities and livelihoods in jeopardy. Their study, which is among the most comprehensive assessment of reefs and their associated biodiversity to date, underscores the rapid pace of global coral collapse.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180978701/

The Arctic.....

The monthly average extent for October 2021 was 6.77 million square kilometers (2.61 million square miles). This ranked eighth lowest in the long-term satellite data record, tied with 2017. It was 1.44 million square kilometers (556,000 square miles) greater than the record low of 5.33 million square kilometers (2.06 million square miles) recorded in 2020, and 1.58 million square kilometers (610,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average. Ice growth was robust across the Eurasian side of the Arctic, including the East Greenland Sea, but there was little expansion of ice southwards within the eastern Beaufort Sea.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Antarctic.....

A newly completed 40-y record of satellite observations is used to quantify changes in Antarctic sea ice coverage since the late 1970s. Sea ice spreads over vast areas and has major impacts on the rest of the climate system, reflecting solar radiation and restricting ocean/atmosphere exchanges. The satellite record reveals that a gradual, decades-long overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extents reversed in 2014, with subsequent rates of decrease in 2014–2017 far exceeding the more widely publicized decay rates experienced in the Arctic. The rapid decreases reduced the Antarctic sea ice extents to their lowest values in the 40-y record, both on a yearly average basis (record low in 2017) and on a monthly basis (record low in February 2017).

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

I'm glad the polar bears are doing better tho'......but according to some forecasts, their population might decline by 30% by year 2050.

https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/

[Jlabute]

Is earth really in danger? What are the signs? Coral is raging back. Arctic ice is raging back. Antarctic ice still creeps higher. Polar bear populations are growing. Greenland ice melt slowed significantly.

That's called eyes wide shut because the evidence is all around.

Insults? How mature.

The Planet Has Lost Half of Its Coral Reefs Since 1950

Scientists have long known that reefs are in peril, but a new study published today in the journal One Earth quantifies coral losses around the world. The in-depth analysis reveals half of coral reefs have been lost since the 1950s. Scientists say climate change, overfishing and pollution are decimating these fragile ecosystems and putting communities and livelihoods in jeopardy. Their study, which is among the most comprehensive assessment of reefs and their associated biodiversity to date, underscores the rapid pace of global coral collapse.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180978701/

Coral reef is at an all-time high in 2021, since 1985. What disturbs me the most about your link is that this is a well-known picture of healthy coral being called bleached, when it isn't. A number of authors have parroted this lie. There are lots of articles on it, here is one.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2021/11/he ... oto-check/

The Arctic.....

The Arctic ice extent is back within two standard deviations of the 1991-2020 mean, which hasn’t happened since 2014.

Antarctic.....

The Antarctic has been setting cold temperature records lately. Antarctic has been slightly and steadily growing especially if you use data out to 2021.

I'm glad the polar bears are doing better tho'......but according to some forecasts, their population might decline by 30% by year 2050.
https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/

No one knows the future. You can stack this upon 1000 other failed predictions and then send $20 to WWF to save the polar bears. They've been looking for suckers with money since that is their business model and I am sure everyone knows their 'prediction' without stating it. Funny they never predicted a growing population. It is lame to hold any credence in bad models, based on bad assumptions, which can't determine what the arctic will look like in 2050, let alone bear population. Their population might increase by 20% too. You should be attune to the use of language like 'might', 'maybe', 'ya never know', 'sometimes maybe', 'sometimes might kind of' especially in the absence of science or reason.

[foenix]

The Planet Has Lost Half of Its Coral Reefs Since 1950


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180978701/

Coral reef is at an all-time high in 2021, since 1985. What disturbs me the most about your link is that this is a well-known picture of healthy coral being called bleached, when it isn't. A number of authors have parroted this lie. There are lots of articles on it, here is one.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2021/11/he ... oto-check/

If that's the case please show some data, besides a blogger's personal opinion that says that the world wide coral population is at an all time high in 2021 because all I saw were articles like this.....

Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2221004747

Decade of climate breakdown saw 14 per cent of coral reefs vanish

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1102242

The Sixth Status of Corals of the World: 2020 Report

https://gcrmn.net/2020-report/

[foenix]

The Arctic.....

The Arctic ice extent is back within two standard deviations of the 1991-2020 mean, which hasn’t happened since 2014.
arcticie.PNG

Again you're looking at a very small section of the melting arctic ice sheet to further the narrative......checkout where that increase is relative to the overall ice melt.....

October 2021 compared to previous years

The downward linear trend in October sea ice extent over the satellite record is 82,100 square kilometers (31,700 square miles) per year, or 9.8 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average (Figure 3). While percentagewise, the overall long-term trend is largest in September, the actual amount (based on the linear trend) of ice lost per year is larger in October: 82,100 square kilometers (31,700 square miles) versus 81,200 square kilometers (31,400 square miles) in September.

Overall, since 1979, October has lost 3.45 million square kilometers (1.33 million square miles) of ice, based on the linear trend. This is equivalent to twice the size of the state of Alaska.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[foenix]

The Antarctic has been setting cold temperature records lately. Antarctic has been slightly and steadily growing especially if you use data out to 2021.

Oh you mean the little blip in Sept. 2021? Here's the latest news.....

Since the Antarctic maximum sea ice extent was reached on September 1, 2021, ice extent has been in a steep decline. Extent went from being above the interdecile (ninetieth percentile) range to being below the tenth percentile for most of October. As a result, sea ice extent in the Antarctic is currently tracking as the third lowest, behind only 2016 and 1986. Sea ice extent is particularly low along the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, including the northern Weddell Sea and the central Indian Ocean sector. Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above the surface) were up to 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) above average within the Weddell Sea. A strong low pressure feature in the Amundsen Sea and above average air pressure in the area south of Australia drove winds that led to the pattern of sea ice extent around the continent.

[Jlabute]

New Study - Coral bleaching NOT caused by human emissions, but by Cloud Radiative Forcing.

Great Barrier Reef (GBR) warming and coral bleaching have often been assumed to be driven by human greenhouse gas emissions and/or El Niño events. A new study finds a better robust correlation between natural cloud cover modulation of solar radiation, shallow-water warming, and bleaching.



Peer reviewed paper here.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 21GL093936

Another NEW paper also studied coral bleaching during the little ice age. Very Interesting.

https://km.dmcr.go.th/ckeditor/upload/f ... _durin.pdf


Join scientific discussion here. There is no scientific interest on John Cook's skepticalscience because they don't believe in science which does not adhere to their narrative.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/03/ ... ot-humans/

[foenix]

New Study - Coral bleaching NOT caused by human emissions, but by Cloud Radiative Forcing.

Great Barrier Reef (GBR) warming and coral bleaching have often been assumed to be driven by human greenhouse gas emissions and/or El Niño events. A new study finds a better robust correlation between natural cloud cover modulation of solar radiation, shallow-water warming, and bleaching.



Peer reviewed paper here.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 21GL093936

Another NEW paper also studied coral bleaching during the little ice age. Very Interesting.

https://km.dmcr.go.th/ckeditor/upload/f ... _durin.pdf


Join scientific discussion here. There is no scientific interest on John Cook's skepticalscience because they don't believe in science which does not adhere to their narrative.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/03/ ... ot-humans/

Is that right? Interesting........

Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet........

The studies have changed how the models treat clouds, following new field research. They suggest that the ability of clouds to keep us cool could be drastically reduced as the world warms — pushing global heating into overdrive........

Recent concern about how accurately the models handle clouds has focused on the blankets of low clouds that any international flyer will have seen extending for hundreds of miles below them across the oceans. Marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds predominantly cool the Earth. They shade roughly a fifth of the oceans, reflecting 30 to 60 percent of the solar radiation that hits them back into space. In this way, they are reckoned to cut the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface by between 4 and 7 percent.

But it seems increasingly likely that they could become thinner or burn off entirely in a warmer world, leaving more clear skies through which the sun may add a degree Celsius or more to global warming. As Mark Zelinka of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, lead author of a review of the new models published last month, has put it: The models “are shedding their protective sunscreen in dramatic fashion....

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clou ... on-warming

It's interesting to note what's causing the reduced cloud cover and therefore more radiative forcing causing coral bleaching according to the new models........increase in CO2 ...........and in turn cherry picked usual wrong conclusion from the pseudoscience blog, whatsupwiththat.

[Jlabute]

Cloud cover makes the most sense plus the study has a much better correlation than any other theory.

Over the last decade, we have had a massive grow back of coral and this probably gave the team an opportunity to relate it to cloud cover. Seeing coral are shallow water organisms, it would make sense that shallow water temperature varies much more through cloud cover cycles. Cloud cover changes more based on ocean cycles and various factors.

CO2 does not control the distribution of clouds!

[Jlabute]

BOMBSHELL news

Re: John Stossel court case.

Facebook admits in court document that their climate fact-checking is only opinion.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/ ... page-2.pdf

Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.

Facebook (now Meta) will face this legal challenge in 2022.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/09/ ... n-opinion/

[foenix]

BOMBSHELL news

Re: John Stossel court case.

Facebook admits in court document that their climate fact-checking is only opinion.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/ ... page-2.pdf

Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.

Facebook (now Meta) will face this legal challenge in 2022.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/09/ ... n-opinion/

Sounds like legal maneuvering more than anything else......

Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation.

Ho hum....another nothing burger.

[foenix]

Cloud cover makes the most sense plus the study has a much better correlation than any other theory.

Over the last decade, we have had a massive grow back of coral and this probably gave the team an opportunity to relate it to cloud cover. Seeing coral are shallow water organisms, it would make sense that shallow water temperature varies much more through cloud cover cycles. Cloud cover changes more based on ocean cycles and various factors.

CO2 does not control the distribution of clouds!

More CO2, less clouds, faster heating of planet is the new theory.

Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet. ...........

It is the most worrying development in the science of climate change for a long time. An apparently settled conclusion about how sensitive the climate is to adding more greenhouse gases has been thrown into doubt by a series of new studies from the world’s top climate modeling groups.

The studies have changed how the models treat clouds, following new field research. They suggest that the ability of clouds to keep us cool could be drastically reduced as the world warms — pushing global heating into overdrive.,,,,,,,,

Recent concern about how accurately the models handle clouds has focused on the blankets of low clouds that any international flyer will have seen extending for hundreds of miles below them across the oceans. Marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds predominantly cool the Earth. They shade roughly a fifth of the oceans, reflecting 30 to 60 percent of the solar radiation that hits them back into space. In this way, they are reckoned to cut the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface by between 4 and 7 percent.

But it seems increasingly likely that they could become thinner or burn off entirely in a warmer world, leaving more clear skies through which the sun may add a degree Celsius or more to global warming. As Mark Zelinka of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, lead author of a review of the new models published last month, has put it: The models “are shedding their protective sunscreen in dramatic fashion.”

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clou ... on-warming

[Howlinwolf]

CO2 does not control the distribution of clouds!

So you are saying that a warmer planet due to greenhouse gases would not effect the amount of water vapour the atmosphere would be able to carry due to increased evaporation?

[JagXKR]

Water vapour is the MAIN greenhouse gas. Without it we would freeze. So which "greenhouse gas" are you referring? CO2?
Makes up a fraction of the total amount of GHG in the atmosphere.
Also warmth and evaporation are not tied together either proportionally or inversely. Areas of warmth have dry and moist air masses. 2 close regions, both warm, can have vastly different evaporation rates. Given 2 different days with identical temperatures one can have significantly more evaporation than the other due to the saturation of the air mass by water vapour.
Warmth is not the driving factor.
Also, when the planet was much warmer than today the atmosphere was overall more moist. Due to the increased moisture, CO2, O2 and warmth, plants grew at rates not seen by modern man. Except in greenhouses which add CO2, moisture and heat. And voila, better growing conditions for plants that we need to survive.
Oh no, the horror. Plants growing at increased rates. We're doomed.

[Jlabute]

CO2 does not control the distribution of clouds!

So you are saying that a warmer planet due to greenhouse gases would not effect the amount of water vapour the atmosphere would be able to carry due to increased evaporation?

Apparently it does not increase global precipitation measured by satellite and clouds don't always form because of higher humidity. That is not the topic though. An increase in CO2 does not cause a pattern of more clouding over specific locations like the Great Barrier Reef. Cloud distribution has patterns that more closely follow ocean conditions, solar activity, and cosmic rays. Especially with the GBR making an enormous recovery in the last 8 years, it goes to show it has nothing to do with ocean acidification, or warming in general, but recent studies show a greater correlation to cloud patterns is the issue.

[foenix]

So you are saying that a warmer planet due to greenhouse gases would not effect the amount of water vapour the atmosphere would be able to carry due to increased evaporation?

Apparently it does not increase global precipitation measured by satellite and clouds don't always form because of higher humidity. That is not the topic though. An increase in CO2 does not cause a pattern of more clouding over specific locations like the Great Barrier Reef. Cloud distribution has patterns that more closely follow ocean conditions, solar activity, and cosmic rays. Especially with the GBR making an enormous recovery in the last 8 years, it goes to show it has nothing to do with ocean acidification, or warming in general, but recent studies show a greater correlation to cloud patterns is the issue.

Except recent studies shows an increase in CO2 shows a greater correlation of less cloud cover due to increase in global warming and I'm not sure where the information is coming from that shows there hasn't been an increase of global precipitation because that's wrong.....It's fairly easy to check.....

On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide (see Figures 1 and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.10 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... cipitation